4# - You still haven't answered the question - how can something come out of nothing?

I don't know how something can come out of nothing. I never claimed that.

Quote

All of that is true, but you still haven't answered the main question. Instead, you point out the supposed unanswerable question of "Who created God?".I have an answer, but whether it is satisfactory to you or anyone else is your decision. Now, the same principles of casuality apply - Everything that has a beginning had a cause.Suppose God exists and He created the universe. With it, He created Time. Now, similar to if you were to make a video game, the laws in what He created do not bind He Himself. I.e. , the concept of time is meaningless to Him. Time is meaningless, so God must have always been; He had no beginning. Therefore, He did not need a cause.

This is not an "answer", it's simply a paragraph full of baseless statements that assert a being that somehow existed outside of the realm of existence created existence before existence existed and therefore does not need a cause. It is ridiculous to even say this in attempt to support your god. And yes, it was not satisfying at all. It was a generic answer. But I commend you for tackling the question.

Quote

6# - I will go thorugh your list of supposed contradictions. I may miss some - I am only human.

A global deluge - There is plenty of evidence for it. I apologize, this may sound like I'm avoiding it, but there is so much I cannot write about it. I will only talk about rock strata around the world, but there is plenty more evidence. There is abundant evidence that many of the rock strata were laid down quickly, one after the other, without significant time breaks between them. Preservation of animal tracks, ripple marks and even raindrop marks, testifies to rapid covering of these features to enable their preservation. I wish I could show you pictures, but I don't know how (I apologise again if it seems like I'm trying to avoid the question). Polystrate fossils speak for it. The scarcity of erosion, soil formation, animal burrows and roots between layers also shows they must have been deposited in quick succession. The limited geographic extent of unconformities (clear breaks in the sequence of deposition with different tilting of layers, etc.) is also consistent with the reality of the global Flood. And there are many other evidences for the Flood. The Valley of the 3 Sisters in Australia, the Morrison Formation in North America the Bungle Bungles also in Australia and the Grand Canyon in the US, are but 4 examples of this rapid weathering and erosion, and the layers of strata prove that they had all been subjected to it at the same time.

I'm sorry, but John Morris? Really? And no, there is no evidence of a global deluge that occurred thousands of years ago no matter what you say. "Preservation of animal tracks"? "Ripple marks"? Geological layers lie undisturbed, billions of species of animals could not have gotten onto a 400 foot long ark made of wood that weren't supported by metal and the Grand Canyon along with the other geographical features you've mentioned go against the idea of a global deluge. It's silly that people would believe a literal account of Noah's Ark.

Quote

The Walls of Jericho – Again, there is evidence. British archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon found them in the 1950s. She showed that Jericho was indeed heavily fortified and that it had been burned by fire, or at least in a dramatic way. An in-depth analysis of the evidence reveals that the destruction took place around 1400 B.C. exactly when the Bible says the conquest occurred. The mound, or ‘tell’ of Jericho was surrounded by a great earthen rampart, or embankment, with a stone retaining wall at its base. The retaining wall was some four to five meters high. On top of that was a mudbrick wall two meters thick and about six to eight meters high. At the crest of the embankment was a similar mudbrick wall whose base was roughly 14 meters above the ground level outside the retaining wall.

Contrary to what you said Kathleen Kenyon found, Kenyon actually discovered that Jericho was uninhabited since 1550 BCE for at least 150 years after it was destroyed. If the Bible is to be true and accurate, then Joshua who would come around 1400 BCE could not have conquered Jericho. Moreover, there was no evidence of walls around Jericho at that time.

Quote

The Tower of Babel – According to the biblical account, the tower was not phallus shaped

It was a joke. Men are proud of their penises. Men have ego. Therefore the tower is phallic. Get it? Never mind.

Quote

and nor was it the sole reason for God to get angry. They directly disobeyed His command to spread around the world. They then decided that they would stay in one spot and build a tower to reach to heaven to see how great they were. This arrogance topped it all off.

So the end result is that your god still got pissed off at them building a tower and staying in one spot. I'm pretty sure free will is useless if you're told how to use free will.

Quote

Again, this account is supported by evidence.

There is no evidence whatsoever of the Tower of Babel.

Quote

However, since the Tower’s location was not disclosed, the evidence comes from the other aspects of the account – the linguistics and the spreading of mankind. For example, scientists only now just realized that all languages came from a common ancestor. They could trace these modern languages to a period in time when they all split up.

"..location was not disclosed"..how convenient.

And when was this? When exactly did the event of the Tower of Babel occur that would actually match up with the timeline of the development of the entire world's thousands of languages from Native America to Mongolia?

Quote

Jesus facing dragons: Nowhere in the Bible does it say that

You're right. As I said, in the Bible AND apocryphal writings which would include this:

And, lo, suddenly there came forth from the cave many dragons; and when the children saw them, they cried out in great terror. Then Jesus went down from the bosom of His mother, and stood on His feet before the dragons; and they adored Jesus, and thereafter retired.

The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, Chapter 18

Quote

The Leviathan – The leviathan fits a poetic description of a marine parasaurolophus or even a crocodile

What? No it does not.

1 You can't catch him with a fish hook or tie him up.3 He will not beg you for mercy.4 He will never serve you or do as you command.5 You can't put him on a leash to make a pet out of him for your children.6 You can never make a meal out of him7 You can't stick a harpoon into him.8 If you tangle with him once and live through it you will never go near him again.9 Even the sight of him is enough to make you try to hide.10 He is so terrible that no one would dare attract his attention.12 He is Very powerful, and well proportioned.13 You can't skin him, and he has two heads.

Two heads? Can't make a meal out of him? Can't stick a harpoon into it? I'm pretty sure crocodiles don't have two heads or can't be eaten. And I'm pretty damn sure bullets can penetrate them much less harpoons. Also the Leviathan's mating partner, the female, was killed personally by God according to the myths so he could serve it up at a feast to the righteous when they die. So, the leviathan nor its offspring cannot exist.

Quote

Melting snails – try putting salt on them

Snails do not melt as a result of getting salt poured on them. They dehydrate.

Quote

The Enslavement of Jews in Egypt – I’m getting bored of answering these. See http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture4b.html or read Whiston, W., Josephus’ Complete Works, Antiquities of the Jews, Book I, chapter VIII, para. 2. Breasted, James A History of Egypt, p. 162, Scribner and Sons, New York, NY, 1954. Or even read Dr. Rosalie David of the Manchester Museum :” It is apparent that the Asiatics (the Egyptian name for the Israelites) were present in the town in some numbers, and this may have reflected the situation elsewhere in Egypt. … It can be stated that these people were loosely classed by Egyptians as ‘Asiatics’, although their exact homeland in Syria or Palestine cannot be determined … The reason for their presence in Egypt remains unclearThe scattered documentation gives no clear answer as to how or why the Asiatics came to Egypt in the Middle Kingdom…There is nevertheless firm literary evidence that Asiatic slaves, women and children were at Gurob”.

O..kay? So where are the remnants of the Egyptian army that went after the Israelites, where is the archaeological evidence of the Israelites' stay in Egypt, where are the writings of the meticulous Egyptians that confirmed thousands of slaves ran away and so forth? You're ignoring the questions at hand.

Quote

10# Allow me to add to your list. Sir Francis Bacon – founder of scientific methodGerardus Mercator – father of modern cartographyGalileo Galilei – Physics, AstronomyBlasie Pascal – Father of the Barometer and of hydrostaticsSir William Petty – Father of statisticsRobert Boyle – Chemistry and Father of Gas DynamicsIsaac Newton – regarded as Father of Modern ScienceWilliam Herschel – Galactic Astronomy, found UranusJames Joule – Father of Modern ThermodynamicsGeorge Stokes – Father of Fluid MechanicsLouis Pasteur – Father of Bacteriology, Biochemistry, Sterilization and ImmunizationThe Lord Kelvin – Absolute zero and EnergeticsJoseph Lister – Antiseptic Surgery

..And what exactly do your additions prove? Christians are smarter than everyone? It also seems you've ignored a large chunk of #10 and the end of it when I cautioned that the sources Christian use are twisted in their favor or are false. John Morris? Really? I still can't get over it.

Q, you were right on that the questions you've posted are actual questions that Christians would use. They are all misdirected "questions" that are chock full of discredited and recycled creationist phrases and attacks on evolution along with quotes that are severely twisted in the favor of Creationism.

Just look at them (bolded):

Quote

Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind? See: creation.com/science#relevance.

What the fuck?

Quote

14.Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”12 See: creation.com/notscience#distinction.

Seriously, please read the original post again.

Quote

15.Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”13 Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”14 If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught? See: creation.com/evo-religious, creation.com/notscience.

Evolution has been proven time and time again to be true. It is NOT a religious system that DEMANDS your belief much like what Creationism demands from its students: a belief in a monotheistic god that created the universe. And "Darwinism"? This is serious Creationist trash you've regurgitated.

Q: Your response to #4 does not make sense. If I create a video game, the 'laws' of the video game (in reality, constants, variables, equations, and methods) do not apply to me. Does that mean that I am the only thing that exists outside of the video game? Does that mean that I am not subject to things which do not apply inside the video game's environment? Does that mean that nothing created me?

The rest of your post would take too long to address, so I will leave it there.

The Tower of Babel – the evidence comes from the other aspects of the account – the linguistics and the spreading of mankind. For example, scientists only now just realized that all languages came from a common ancestor. They could trace these modern languages to a period in time when they all split up.

Begging the question/appeal to ignorance. Also ignoring the counterevidence. Not all languages have a comon anscestor. Those in India, Europe, Asia, and Africa north of the Sahara are shown to have common roots; call it EXE. Several Central Southeast African language share no common roots with EXE. Several Polynesian languages show nothing in common with EXE. Apache also shows no commonality with EXE. Nor do the Natives of Chile and Peru show any EXE influence.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

1.How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”1 Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.2 A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design? See: creation.com/loopholes.

2.How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created? See: creation.com/code.

3.How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See: creation.com/meta-information. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate? See: creation.com/train.

4.Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? See: creation.com/defining-terms.

5.How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”3 See: creation.com/motor (includes animation).

6.Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”4 Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”5 The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes? See: creation.com/design_legit.

7.How did multi-cellular life originate? How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals? See: creation.com/multicellularity.

8.How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs). See: creation.com/evosex.

9.Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”.6 Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem. See: creation.com/pattquote.

10.How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”7 See: creation.com/werner.

11.How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes? See: creation.com/chesterton.

12.Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”8 See: creation.com/sexstories.

13.Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind? See: creation.com/science#relevance.

14.Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”12 See: creation.com/notscience#distinction.

15.Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”13 Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”14 If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught? See: creation.com/evo-religious, creation.com/notscience.

Have you actually ever tried honestly to investigate the answers to any of your questions? Don't just look in the bible or ask your shithead pastor or whomever. There are volumes of information online that address these topics. And hey, guess what, we don't know all the answers yet and might never but at least we have the intellectual honesty to admit this instead of saying that some bronze age, goatherders magic man in the sky created the universe.

Logged

When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me. -Emo Philips

I frequently argued Christians in Indonesian forums & while I retained many knowledge about debating techniques I learned these last couple years, it's always nice having more materials in the palm of your hand.

I'm so used to getting insulted by multiple posters in religious forums that I find them entertaining, at one forum I even managed to get banned by the moderator !

Most Christians that I argued don't even know the contents of their own bible, it's pretty embarassing to have an Atheist teach you your own bible if I may say so.

Just so you'll know, there is a book out there, titled; 50 reasons people give for believing in god. The author, Guy P. Harrison does a fine job of shooting down all 50 of their reasons. To his credit, he does it without resorting to impropriety or personal condemnations. ISBN 978-1-59102-567-2 Good book, easy read, first rate ammunition, cheap, from Amazon. Not surprisingly the publisher is Prometheus.

Hi, C! I noticed the argument from morality is first on your list, I looked with curiosity to see if you would be the first atheist I'd encounter to finally offer a cogent discussion on where naturalistic morality might have come from. Alas, I was disappointed.

#1"Without God, there is no morality! We have morals, THUS God exists!"

This is one of the most common arguments made by Christians which is usually accompanied by the citing of the 10 Commandments (Thou shalt not kill, etc), verses from the Bible or quotes from famous people like C.S. Lewis or whatnot. The thought process of the argument goes something like this:

- Humans can love, choose not to kill, be proper in their manner and set up laws. Morality could be innate.- What is the ultimate standard for which these laws and seemingly innate feelings of morality measure up to?- The ultimate standard must come from God who created humans!

Sure... I suppose that's the basic idea of the argument. You offer three rebuttals:

1) The Christian God was not present in every part of the world, before AND after it "revealed" itself through Jesus or Moses or whoever else.

The argument isn't "Only Christians can be moral" but rather "Without God nothing would qualify as good or evil. We demonstrably live in an amoral world, why would human life be subject to human morals?" This rebuttal thus fails. (The fact that you make it shows you haven't been paying very close attention when Christians make this point.)

2) You are in a group of 200 people. Would you want to get killed by one of the other 199 people? You also gathered 100 coconuts for the winter over a course of 5 months, would you want all of these to get stolen?

No, of course not. But this surely can't serve as a basis for morality. I mean, if all morality is is enlightened self interest, then it would be morally right for me to steal coconuts, so long as I don't get caught. You ask about the other guy? Screw the other guy! Heck, so long as I could get away with it, it would be completely moral of me, on your self interest idea, to murder the other 199 people and take all the coconuts for myself. Mmmm, coconuts.

3) Even with the Christian God, Christians have committed atrocities like any other group.

See #1. The argument isn't that Christians act better than everyone else, it's that the amoral universe that we observe cannot logically magic up morals for humans. On atheism the world is an amoral place, and we out logically to adapt by behaving in an amoral fashion. Go read some Nietzsche, then come back to me and tell me where he's wrong, assuming atheism is the correct worldview.

Logged

Why not name the website ... "whywontGodallowlaserstoshootoutofmyeyespewpewpew.com"

Hi, C! I noticed the argument from morality is first on your list, I looked with curiosity to see if you would be the first atheist I'd encounter to finally offer a cogent discussion on where naturalistic morality might have come from. Alas, I was disappointed.

Hi MIC!

Quote

The argument isn't "Only Christians can be moral" but rather "Without God nothing would qualify as good or evil.

Right. So even without God things DID qualify as good and evil as determined by multiple societies and civilizations that never heard of this "God" or "Jesus".

Quote

We demonstrably live in an amoral world, why would human life be subject to human morals?"

Because it's human? And when you're talking about 'world', which world are you talking about? Nature? The world of human civilization?

Quote

This rebuttal thus fails. (The fact that you make it shows you haven't been paying very close attention when Christians make this point.)

LOL? I don't understand your process of thought. Christians simply argue that without God, there can be no morality. My "rebuttals" proved that line of thought wrong by offering three basic examples. We do not require the idea of a god to define what is good and what is bad. That's what I proved. And..that's what you sort of missed.

Quote

No, of course not.

Then let's not try to steal each other's shit or kill each other! Agreed?

Quote

But this surely can't serve as a basis for morality.

It's a start.

Quote

I mean, if all morality is is enlightened self interest, then it would be morally right for me to steal coconuts, so long as I don't get caught.

I never said morality was based on "self-interest", that'd sort of be going against the whole concept of being moral, well at least for me. It was a basic example. Do you want to be killed? No. Do others want to be killed? No. Make laws/rules for your group. Then it becomes "wrong" to kill. Do you see?

Quote

You ask about the other guy? Screw the other guy! Heck, so long as I could get away with it, it would be completely moral of me, on your self interest idea, to murder the other 199 people and take all the coconuts for myself. Mmmm, coconuts.

Again, you completely misunderstood my point. But sure, coconuts.

Quote

See #1. The argument isn't that Christians act better than everyone else, it's that the amoral universe that we observe cannot logically magic up morals for humans.

What do you not understand about humans making up morals for themselves? WE define morality. Not God or the universe around us.

Quote

On atheism the world is an amoral place, and we out logically to adapt by behaving in an amoral fashion.

?

Quote

Go read some Nietzsche, then come back to me and tell me where he's wrong, assuming atheism is the correct worldview.

[on why human life be subject to human morals] Because it's human? And when you're talking about 'world', which world are you talking about? Nature? The world of human civilization?

Remember, on your view, all humanity is is a collection of self replicating fairly complicated chemical reactions. You know that fizzing stuff a bottle of coke makes when you open the lid too fast? We're a more complicated version of that - just a chemical reaction. Given that fizz has no moral duties and obligations (to borrow a phrase from Dr. Craig), can you show why humans have any?

Christians simply argue that without God, there can be no morality. My "rebuttals" proved that line of thought wrong by offering three basic examples. We do not require the idea of a god to define what is good and what is bad. That's what I proved. And..that's what you sort of missed.

Well of course we don't require the idea of a god to do good. Who's arguing that? I'm arguing instead that just as the existence of wet things proves water is a real thing, so too does the existence of morality prove that God is real. I might be a crazy loon who doesn't believe in water, but if I walk outside in the rain, I'm still gonna get wet.

I never said morality was based on "self-interest", that'd sort of be going against the whole concept of being moral, well at least for me. It was a basic example. Do you want to be killed? No. Do others want to be killed? No. Make laws/rules for your group. Then it becomes "wrong" to kill. Do you see?

The basis of morality you offered is enlightened self interest. It's basically saying "I don't want to be robbed, so I want to live in a society where robbing doesn't take place, so we must have laws against robbing."Let me lay it out slowly (not to belittle your intelligence, just to make my point super clear.)

You say:"Do you want to be killed? No."I say: Sure, I'm with you so far.

You say:"Do others want to be killed? No."I say: Sure thing, I agree.

You say:"Make laws/rules for your group."I say: Whoa whoa whoa! Are these laws going to limit my coconut supply? Why ought I care what the others want? Why should we make rules or laws enshrining what they want vs. what I want? So long as I'm bigger or stronger or smarter or more conniving, I can acknowledge that others might not want to be killed or have their coconuts stolen, but you've given me no reason to care about what they want. On atheism, again, all they are is complicated chemical reactions who have coconuts that I want. Coconuts are valuable things, you have to give me a very good, grounded, solid reason to not end that chemical reaction we call 'Bob' over there and take all his coconuts for myself.

What do you not understand about humans making up morals for themselves? WE define morality. Not God or the universe around us.

I guess I don't understand why we consistently make up the same morals for ourselves. I mean, if humans really do make up morality for themselves, you'd expect to see them span the gamut from "No Killing" all the way to "Kill everyone!" Instead this ruleset that humans make up for ourselves consistently adheres to the same basic principles.

C, it sounds like your saying societies can define for themselves what is good and evil without the idea of a god ever entering the picture. Sure, I agree.[1] Let me ask you, though: In Nazi Germany, that society defined killing Jews and gays and disabled persons as good and right: in order to cleanse Germany of non-Aryans, it was necessary to cleanse the gene pool of these 'undesirables.' If societies can define for themselves what is good, then this, by definition, was a completely moral thing for the Nazi's to do. Do you agree? I'm not asking if you agree that it was a good thing to do. Of course it wasn't. But for them was it good to do? When they said 'it is a good thing to kill Jews' were they wrong?

Remember, on your view, all humanity is is a collection of self replicating fairly complicated chemical reactions. You know that fizzing stuff a bottle of coke makes when you open the lid too fast? We're a more complicated version of that - just a chemical reaction. Given that fizz has no moral duties and obligations (to borrow a phrase from Dr. Craig), can you show why humans have any?

MiC, I believe you've been shown why long ago. Empathy and evolution into societies. Your argument that morals can only come from the supernatural (and only your version of it) is an old one and easily demonstrated to be not the only possible answer.

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

C, it sounds like your saying societies can define for themselves what is good and evil without the idea of a god ever entering the picture. Sure, I agree.[1] Let me ask you, though: In Nazi Germany, that society defined killing Jews and gays and disabled persons as good and right: in order to cleanse Germany of non-Aryans, it was necessary to cleanse the gene pool of these 'undesirables.' If societies can define for themselves what is good, then this, by definition, was a completely moral thing for the Nazi's to do. Do you agree? I'm not asking if you agree that it was a good thing to do. Of course it wasn't. But for them was it good to do? When they said 'it is a good thing to kill Jews' were they wrong?

Even though I'd argue it is something that almost never happens (societies inevitably end up worshiping something)

You are asking if it was a good thing to do. "Good" is relative to the person being asked; "good" doesn't mean jack crap as far as the objective universe is concerned. Just because this is an inconvienent, even upsetting, fact in no way changes that it is a fact.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

I guess I don't understand why we consistently make up the same morals for ourselves. I mean, if humans really do make up morality for themselves, you'd expect to see them span the gamut from "No Killing" all the way to "Kill everyone!" Instead this ruleset that humans make up for ourselves consistently adheres to the same basic principles.

What basic principles?

Cover women from head to toe, separate them in public, lest a man feel tempted beyond his control vs. Educate women from early childhood and encourage her to pursue those interests she determines

Defend fetuses from artificial termination vs. Defend women from forced incubation against their will

Enforce moral code in legislation for all to comply v. Allow for individual moral code to develop and stop only when rights of another are threatened

What you seem to be missing (purposefully or because it's incomprehensible to you) is that "morality" is a commonly agreed to set of socially appropriate behaviors. What is appropriate in one society isn't appropriate in another, therefore the idea of what is "moral" is not consistent. What is appropriate in one society two hundred years ago isn't appropriate in that same society today because morality evolves because society evolves. As information is gathered, it is applied to circumstances and that affects what behavior is acceptable in any given society.

I wonder how much you're having difficulty because your empathetic skills have been stunted due to a belief system that advocates obedience over intellectual freedom.

Remember, on your view, all humanity is is a collection of self replicating fairly complicated chemical reactions. You know that fizzing stuff a bottle of coke makes when you open the lid too fast? We're a more complicated version of that - just a chemical reaction. Given that fizz has no moral duties and obligations (to borrow a phrase from Dr. Craig), can you show why humans have any?

MiC, I believe you've been shown why long ago. Empathy and evolution into societies. Your argument that morals can only come from the supernatural (and only your version of it) is an old one and easily demonstrated to be not the only possible answer.

Many have attempted, none have succeeded.By the way, "Empathy and evolution into societies" is a word salad, it doesn't even carry any grammatical meaning. Is that what your argument is reduced to, throwing around the words "empathy" and "evolution" and hoping something sticks?

You are asking if it was a good thing to do. "Good" is relative to the person being asked; "good" doesn't mean jack crap as far as the objective universe is concerned. Just because this is an inconvienent, even upsetting, fact in no way changes that it is a fact.

Read the question again. Specifically the part I italicized to draw your attention to it. Here it is again:"But for them was it good to do? When they said 'it is a good thing to kill Jews' were they wrong?"

Murder, theft, and rape are evil.Truth, honor, courage, and beauty are good.

The vast, vast majority of societies seem to agree on basic principles like these. Sure, some disagree on how to implement these basic principles. Take one of your "vs" below: "Defend fetuses from artificial termination vs. Defend women from forced incubation against their will" The only way this is even a question is we've redefined abortion as not murder by defining the victim as a "fetus", not a "person." If that entity that is being aborted is a real live person, then the abortion debate would stop tomorrow - everyone agrees Murder is wrong. It's only by redefining "little helpless tiny person" into "a lump of tissue" that the debate continues today.

Oh, and I'm not "missing" that morality is a commonly agreed to set of socially appropriate behaviors. I'm disagreeing with that, and I'm attempting to show that you disagree with it too, if you would just stop half a second to think about it instead of mindlessly parroting the drivel you've read on the freethought blogs.

Logged

Why not name the website ... "whywontGodallowlaserstoshootoutofmyeyespewpewpew.com"

Remember, on your view, all humanity is is a collection of self replicating fairly complicated chemical reactions. You know that fizzing stuff a bottle of coke makes when you open the lid too fast? We're a more complicated version of that - just a chemical reaction. Given that fizz has no moral duties and obligations (to borrow a phrase from Dr. Craig), can you show why humans have any?

Well, the quick-and-dirty response to this is that the fizzing stuff in a bottle of coke is not sentient, where human beings are.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

You are asking if it was a good thing to do. "Good" is relative to the person being asked; "good" doesn't mean jack crap as far as the objective universe is concerned. Just because this is an inconvienent, even upsetting, fact in no way changes that it is a fact.

Read the question again. Specifically the part I italicized to draw your attention to it. Here it is again:"But for them was it good to do? When they said 'it is a good thing to kill Jews' were they wrong?"

If they thought it was good when they did it, it was good when they did it...as far as they were concerned. This is as obvious as asking "if a person thought something felt hairy when they felt it, did they think it felt hairy?"

"Good" is a value judgement. Value judgments are, by definition, based on the values of the person judging.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

I’ll agree with that in that no one has succeeded to get you to pay attention to the instances that have shown your god isn't the only answer to the problem of where morality comes from. What keeps another god from being responsible? Oh yes, you don’t belive in those ones. How convenient.

Quote

By the way, "Empathy and evolution into societies" is a word salad, it doesn't even carry any grammatical meaning. Is that what your argument is reduced to, throwing around the words "empathy" and "evolution" and hoping something sticks?

Oh my, I’m sorry you can’t read or recall what you’ve been told before. I’ll make it simpler so you can’t ignore it again. You were shown long ago that a likely basis for morality and the common laws between cultures is human empathy, e.g. I don't want that done to me so I won't do it to someone else; and the human evolution into societies. These societies need certain restrictions on behavior so they can function.

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

Oh my, I’m sorry you can’t read or recall what you’ve been told before. I’ll make it simpler so you can’t ignore it again. You were shown long ago that a likely basis for morality and the common laws between cultures is human empathy, e.g. I don't want that done to me so I won't do it to someone else; and the human evolution into societies. These societies need certain restrictions on behavior so they can function.

Plus a culture without the value of cooperation is unlikely to develop. It wouldn't even develop language...all a non-cooperative culture's meme would be a dead issue and easily defeated by any culture that had some cooperative value.

Seriously, having to explain this is a little like having to revisit the "1 plus 1 = 2" of anthropology.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

You are asking if it was a good thing to do. "Good" is relative to the person being asked; "good" doesn't mean jack crap as far as the objective universe is concerned. Just because this is an inconvienent, even upsetting, fact in no way changes that it is a fact.

Read the question again. Specifically the part I italicized to draw your attention to it. Here it is again:"But for them was it good to do? When they said 'it is a good thing to kill Jews' were they wrong?"

If they thought it was good when they did it, it was good when they did it...as far as they were concerned. This is as obvious as asking "if a person thought something felt hairy when they felt it, did they think it felt hairy?"

"Good" is a value judgement. Value judgments are, by definition, based on the values of the person judging.

For MathIsCool, I don't think it is as obvious as asking your hairy question. His equivocation would be different:"if a person thought something felt hairy when they felt it, are they hairy?"

He's arguing that the very existence of the game implies a rulebook, and the rulebook must have been written by god. MathIsCool, if that isn't a fair summation of your position, please correct me.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Many have attempted, none have succeeded.By the way, "Empathy and evolution into societies" is a word salad, it doesn't even carry any grammatical meaning. Is that what your argument is reduced to, throwing around the words "empathy" and "evolution" and hoping something sticks?

Many have attempted to show that morality must come from the supernatural, none have succeeded in actually proving it in a way that convinces people who do not already accept that proposition. That means it's a circular argument.

Also, "Empathy and evolution into societies" has grammatical meaning because it's an answer to "can you show why humans have any?" Attempting to deride it as a "word salad" so you can pretend it isn't actually an answer is kind of silly, and you should know better than that.

Quote from: MathIsCool

Read the question again. Specifically the part I italicized to draw your attention to it. Here it is again:"But for them was it good to do? When they said 'it is a good thing to kill Jews' were they wrong?"

In other words, it's subjective, as Hatter was saying. The fact that you or I disagree with that subjective decision does not make our opinions on the matter objective, as I believe you were trying to imply.

Quote from: MathIsCool

Murder, theft, and rape are evil.Truth, honor, courage, and beauty are good.

Murdering someone who tried to murder me is not evil. Stealing in order to survive is not evil. Rape...well, I'm not gonna go there, but I'll bet someone could probably come up with a "not evil" for it, too.

Telling the truth when it means an innocent man will die is not good. Using honor as an excuse to kill someone who wasn't respectful is not good. Courageously charging a machine gun nest in the open is generally not good, and is actually kind of stupid. And something beautiful can certainly be evil.

Quote from: MathIsCool

The vast, vast majority of societies seem to agree on basic principles like these. Sure, some disagree on how to implement these basic principles. Take one of your "vs" below: "Defend fetuses from artificial termination vs. Defend women from forced incubation against their will" The only way this is even a question is we've redefined abortion as not murder by defining the victim as a "fetus", not a "person." If that entity that is being aborted is a real live person, then the abortion debate would stop tomorrow - everyone agrees Murder is wrong. It's only by redefining "little helpless tiny person" into "a lump of tissue" that the debate continues today.

The fact that many societies agree in general on things like this, even though they disagree on the specifics, certainly does not prove some 'objective' principle is responsible. The fact is that many values are considered to be values because they are beneficial to society as a whole, but the fact that something is beneficial does not mean that it came from some external source. If it is recognized as beneficial, it spreads from one society to another, but it doesn't spontaneously appear in all societies at the same time.

Quote from: MathIsCool

Oh, and I'm not "missing" that morality is a commonly agreed to set of socially appropriate behaviors. I'm disagreeing with that, and I'm attempting to show that you disagree with it too, if you would just stop half a second to think about it instead of mindlessly parroting the drivel you've read on the freethought blogs.

If your intention is to show me that I 'really' disagree, or that anyone here 'really' disagrees, with the idea of morality being a common set of acceptable behaviors, you've failed utterly, because you are approaching it from the incorrect position that you know better than people who disagree with you. Also, I don't read freethought blogs. I actually think about things and come to my own decision. So I don't automatically reject what you or anyone says because I don't already agree with it, I spend time considering it and deciding what actually makes sense. And the fact is that your idea of an objective source for morality doesn't make sense, because otherwise morality wouldn't even be an issue. If everyone got morality from a single objective source, then it would never need to change to account for anything.

"But for them was it good to do? When [the Nazis] said 'it is a good thing to kill Jews' were they wrong?"

If they thought it was good when they did it, it was good when they did it...as far as they were concerned.

So if someone, as a member of the society of Nazi Germany, had the courage to stand up and say "It's wrong to kill Jews!" they'd be incorrect. Nazi Germany as a society had already collectively decided on that particular ethical situation. There was a vote and everything.Furthermore, to any members of the society of Nazi Germany, saving Jews by hiding them in attics, say, was by definition evil. Again, Nazi Germany as a society had already decided on that particular ethical situation.

Right?

Logged

Why not name the website ... "whywontGodallowlaserstoshootoutofmyeyespewpewpew.com"